Prototype Nutrition Ketoforce

Nov

4

Two New "Designer Steroid" Supplements

By Patrick Arnold

Believe it or not, even after all the recent federal crackdowns on synthetic “designer” anabolic steroid analogues there still are some companies willing to roll the dice and introduce new ones to the market. While these are not (yet) controlled substances, they are not natural substances either so selling them as supplements is not exactly kosher. But since these sort of things always sell great I guess some think its worth the risk.

The first compound is estra-4,9-diene-17b-ol-3-one (commonly referred to as “dienolone”). What is ironic about this compound is that the government scheduled it’s precursor (estra-4,9-diene-3,17-dione – erroneously referred to as “tren”) just last January. If you recall, the old “tren” products worked pretty well but at the same time they were not free of potential adverse side effects. Anyway, as effective a compound as tren was, expect this stuff to work a lot better – and for two reasons. First reason, this is the active hormone and so requires no in-vivo enzymatic conversion. Second reason, this is delivered in a transdermal base so bioavailability goes way up as compared to oral. This product scores an impressive 10:1 on the Hershberger anabolic/androgenic ratio scale, plus it’s got decent absolute anabolic potency. As of yet I have not heard of anyone using it and I don’t know if it has hit the shelves yet.

The second product that is being introduced is very interesting as well. It is 7a,17a-dimethyl-androst-4-ene-3b-17b-diol. This stuff is a precursor to the legendary steroid of decades past known as bolasterone. From what is known of bolasterone it was available in the 1960’s for a very short period of time – possibly being removed from the market because of hepatotoxicity issues. I have never heard of anybody taking real bolasterone before but on paper a few things stick out about the stuff. First of all, it is very potent (6X as anabolic as methyltestosterone). Second of all, it likely aromatizes to a potent estrogen. And lastly, in all likelihood it’s not particularly liver friendly. This all adds up to a steroid that will probably give you a lot of strength and size, water bloat (due to the estrogen), and a relatively high risk of side effects such as gynecomastia and liver stress. Now don’t forget, what is being sold here now is the precursor to bolasterone, and not bolasterone itself. However, I would expect this precursor to have very good conversion to bolasterone because it is a “4-en-3b-ol” steroid, and these convert very readily to the active 3-ketone. Bottom line – this stuff is not for kiddies and that’s for damn sure

6 Responses so far

This sounds Swee!

Are you familiar with Antaeus Labs? Are they legit?

I am not familiar with Antaeus labs but i have a suspicion that whoever is behind it probably is already established in the industry under another company name.

PA, do you anticipate a possible FDA oversight due to Trenazone being a transdermal?

By that I mean, if it were oral and being sold as a supplement, it would surely suffer from gov’t notice over time; but as a TD it can be marketed and sold as something other than a “supplement”, correct?

Transdermals make it more “dark grey” IMO not less. l like transdermals for absorption and less strain on liver for certian compounds.

Some try to label them as sports tonics.

Read below

Perhaps the most critical provision above relates to the second clause. I spoke with Dr. Robert Moore, the director of the Office of Special Nutritionals (which is the department within the FDA which governs dietary supplements) to get him to clarify this clause.

When questioned about ingestion methods of supplements his response was “dietary supplements are to be consumed as or like food” This specifically excludes methods of delivery which intentionally bypass the gastrointestinal tract.

This means that both transdermal and transmucosal delivery systems are expressly prohibited. A fact which he verified by stating that both of these compound delivery methodologies are “drug delivery systems” and that the constituent components delivered via these methods are certainly not intended to supplement the diet.

In other words, both the prohormone transdermal gels, and even more specifically the cyclodextrin/prohormone complexes (not to mention the topical/injectible prohormone mixtures) based upon their marketing materials which specifically describe the fact that by delivering the nutrient compounds directly into the bloodstream they increase absorption which is compromised by the digestive tract and the first pass through the liver.

Just so there was no confusion, I also asked Dr. Moore if either of the above examples would be eligible to be marketed as a homeopathic drug. Again, his response was negative. Homeopathic drugs are covered under their own unique section of the FD&C Regulations. Critically, the only ingredients which are approved to be marketed as homeopathic drugs must be listed in Clarke’s Materia Medica of Homeopathic Compounds which is the basis for the United States Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia.

Additionally, the US Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia specifies acceptable delivery methodologies. For example, sublingual absorption is allowed, so is topical delivery, however, unless the compounds which act as carriers are also listed in the USHP the compound will not be eligible to be a homeopathic drug.

So. After all this discussion, are there any safe and effective transdermal products out there?

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.